User:Jeriblank/New media art/Mbruce21 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jeriblank


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jeriblank/New media art


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * New media art

Lead
As far as I can tell, the only update to the lead in this draft was the addition of a citation to an already present sentence. This citation is a current, quality source based on Wikipedia’s guidelines, therefore this citation is a good addition to the lead. I believe the introductory sentence of this lead is sufficient as it concisely defines the topic of the article. The current lead does not seem to provide a brief description of the article’s sections, but the lead area of the current article does contain a table of contents that achieves this, so I don’t believe it is necessary to also add it into the content of the lead itself. The lead does not include any information that is not present elsewhere in the article. I do not necessarily think this lead is overly detailed, but it could use some brief editing potentially, as some sentences are awkward to read, particularly the very last sentence.

Content
All content added is relevant to the article’s topic. The content that has been added seems to be up to date. For the additions in content, four sources were added. The oldest of these sources is 2012, which is still relatively up to date especially for scholarly work. There is one source where I am unsure of its date because no date is provided in the citation (Time & Bits). Therefore, I cannot determine if the content added for this source could be considered as up to date, though it looks like this source might be from 1998. No content seems to be blatantly missing from the article. What has been added in this draft is mostly information in the longevity section regarding the digital preservation of new media art, therefore these additions fill in one area where content could have been considered missing in the existing article. The information on George Legrady is a particularly nice addition to the article, as it adds greatly to one’s understanding of the content provided in that portion of the themes section of the article.

Tone and Balance
Though not much content has yet been added to the existing article in this draft, that which has been added is neutral. The content also is not heavily biased and only enhances what is currently present in the article sections they have been added to. Nothing is over or underrepresented. The largest addition that this individual has made is in the longevity section, but it makes sense that the most content was added here given that this section pertains more directly to digital curation and preservation, the content of the course we are completing this Wikipedia assignment for. Therefore, if the individual stays on the right track as they add more content, there should be no issues with tone and balance.

Sources and References
All of the new content is backed up by reliable, secondary, and scholarly sources of information (sources 3, 12, 18, and 19) except for the content that uses citation number 16, which is from the website longnow.org. This source, I think, would be considered a primary source for the information added, as it is about the Time and Bits: Managing Digital Continuity meeting which the Long Now Foundation was a collaborator on and the source used for this added content is the Long Now Foundation’s website. Because we are all still learning and understanding the Wikipedia requirements regarding sources, I am not quite positive on this, but I thought it was okay for primary sources to be used to cite brief instances of factual information, which this addition could be considered. Therefore, I would double check the Wikipedia training regarding sources before continuing with the use of this specific source. The content added also accurately reflects the sources utilized. The sources utilized for the added content are current, except the date of the longnow.org source (citation 16) is not available, though could probably be dated to sometime around 1998 (given the time of the actual meeting that this source discusses) providing further reason to not utilize this source. That being said, the content added to the article with this source is relevant, as the article is pointing out that around the mid 90s people became concerned with storing digital works of new media art. Therefore, this source is utilized to provide an example of this fact, so even though it isn’t current per se, this addition and, therefore this source, still seem to be good additions to the article. The sources do seem to be thorough, but because there is still much more that needs to be added to this article, more sources would likely also need to be added. However, upon a brief look at the bibliography sandbox of this individual there are still a number of scholarly, secondary, and up to date sources from there that could be utilized to add content to this article. For example, citations number 2 and 3 from their bibliography. All of the links to the added citations work properly. In regard to source number 16, there might be a better peer reviewed, secondary source available. The current source utilized mentions a report of the conference’s proceedings published by the Getty Information Institute. Perhaps, utilizing this report would be a better source than just the website of the Long Now Foundation.

Organization
The content that has been added is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read as requested by Wikipedia. Though not much has been added it is all of good quality. They are simple, short additions that add to one’s understanding of the topic immensely by providing some real-life examples of what is being discussed in the article, as is the case with the information about George Legrady. The content that has been added largely does not have any grammatical or spelling errors, though I would maybe add a comma after “due to the vast technical aspects involved.” Also, I think it should be “involves” instead of “involve” in the following sentence: “which involve specialized or totally unique preservation techniques”. The last sentence added in the third paragraph of the longevity section might also be improved by changing the wording to the following: “The preservation of complex digital objects emphasizes the inherent connection of the components of the piece.” The content that has been added is also well organized. What has currently been added is not much, but each sentence was carefully placed in the appropriate section within the existing article which already does a good job outlining the major points of the topic.

Images and Media
No new images or media were added to the article in this draft. There are no portions from the original article that are lacking images necessary to the understanding of the article, therefore I don’t think any additions of images are necessary. However, regarding the small amount of new content that has been added in this draft, there is an opportunity where an image could be added. In the new content added in this draft a piece by George Legrady is mentioned. It might enhance the quality of this content to provide an image of the work if feasible given Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. It might also be beneficial to add an image of the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model as the content added in this draft also mentions this model.

Overall Impressions
The small amount of content that has been added certainly improves the quality of the article by adding some real-life examples to provide context for the current content of the existing article. This is the main strength of the content that has been added. The content that has been added could be improved by either confirming that the use of source number 16 is okay, given Wikipedia’s guidelines, or by finding another source that can be utilized to prove the same information. The draft will further be improved by the addition of more work as this individual has done a good job with the content they have been able to provide thus far.

Word Count
Approximately 152 words of content have been added. Therefore, this draft still needs 648 more words in order to be considered complete by our assignment’s standards.